Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 20140200–CA.,20140200–CA. |
| Citation | 372 P.3d 55,2016 UT App 64 |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Greg HOLLENBACH, Appellant, v. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Bret W. Rawson, Nate N. Nelson, Sandy, and Jeremy G. Jones, for Appellant.
J. Elizabeth Haws, for Appellee.
Memorandum Decision
TOOMEY
, Judge:
¶ 1 In this appeal,1 we must decide whether the Salt Lake City Civil Service Commission (the CSC) erred when it determined it lacked jurisdiction to review Greg Hollenbach's appeal of his discharge from the Salt Lake City Police Department (the City). The CSC made this determination because it received Hollenbach's appeal in the mail one day after the deadline for filing an appeal. Because we conclude that when an appeal is mailed to the CSC, a post office cancellation mark establishes the date upon which the appeal was filed, we set aside the CSC's decision and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 2 The City discharged Hollenbach with a letter hand-delivered to him on November 8, 2013. The letter informed Hollenbach that he could challenge his discharge with a written “request for appeal” addressed to the CSC “within five (5) business days.” The last day for Hollenbach to do this was November 18, 2013.
¶ 3 Hollenbach sent the CSC a letter captioned “Notice of Appeal,” and mailed it via United States Postal Service (the USPS) certified mail. The letter was dated and signed on November 11, 2013, and the envelope was postmarked the same date. According to the certified receipt, the USPS processed the envelope on November 12 but delivered it, and the CSC stamped it “received,” on November 19, 2013.
¶ 4 Although Hollenbach submitted proof that he mailed the appeal of his discharge days in advance of November 18, the CSC concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it received the notice after November 18. It issued an order explaining its decision, and this appeal followed.
¶ 5 Hollenbach argues the CSC erred in determining that his notice of appeal was not filed in a timely fashion, thereby depriving it of jurisdiction. Relying on Utah Code subsection 68–3–8.5(2)(a), which expressly provides that a report or other document is considered filed with the state or one of its political subdivisions on the date shown by the post office cancellation mark stamped on the envelope, Hollenbach reasons that his appeal was filed on time because it was postmarked before the deadline. The City argues that Hollenbach failed to preserve this argument because he did not raise it when the CSC considered the matter.
¶ 6 Generally, “ ‘[a]n issue is preserved for appeal when it has been presented to the district court in such a way that the court has an opportunity to rule on [it].’ ” Helf v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2015 UT 81, ¶ 42, 361 P.3d 63
() (quoting Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68, ¶ 12, 266 P.3d 828 ). This “ensure[s] that the district court had a chance to rule on an issue before an appellate court will address it” and “promotes both judicial economy and fairness to the parties.” Helf, 2015 UT 81, ¶ 42, 361 P.3d 63. It follows that “[w]here a district court itself raises and then resolves an issue sua sponte, it obviously had an opportunity to rule on the issue,” which “satisfies the basic purpose of the preservation rule.” Id.; accord
Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, ¶¶ 10–12, 285 P.3d 1133. The same logic applies to the proceedings of the CSC, and thus to our review of this case. Cf.
ABCO Enters. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2009 UT 36, ¶ 11, 211 P.3d 382 ().
¶ 7 Here, the CSC itself raised and resolved whether the term “filing” referred to the date the notice was mailed or the date it was received. It acknowledged that its jurisdiction “turn[ed] on the meaning of the word ‘filed,’ ” and relied on this court's holding in Maverik Country Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 860 P.2d 944 (Utah Ct.App.1993)
to guide its interpretation.
¶ 8 The City also contends that Hollenbach's argument was not preserved because the CSC never had a chance to consider the authority on which Hollenbach now relies to support his arguments. Again, we are not persuaded. Appellate courts will “routinely consider new authority relevant to issues that have properly been preserved” and will not “disregard controlling authority that bears upon the ultimate resolution of a case solely because the parties did not raise it below.” Patterson, 2011 UT 68, ¶ 18, 266 P.3d 828
; see also
id. ¶ 13 (). We conclude that because the CSC had a chance to resolve the issue and decided it, the issue was preserved.
¶ 9 Our review of the CSC's decision “shall be on the record of the commission and shall be for the purpose of determining if the commission has abused its discretion or exceeded its authority.” Utah Code Ann. § 10–3–1012.5 (LexisNexis 2015)
. But as our supreme court has explained “legal errors, such as the incorrect interpretation of a statute or the application of an improper legal standard, are usually an abuse of discretion.” Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General's Office, 2015 UT 77, ¶ 49, 358 P.3d 1075 ; accord
Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, ¶ 17, 299 P.3d 1058. Accordingly, we review an agency's interpretation of its own rules under an intermediate standard, deferring to the agency's interpretation only so long as it is both reasonable and rational. See
Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 8, 294 P.3d 580, aff'd, 2014 UT 22, 330 P.3d 91 ; see also
Westside Dixon Assocs., LLC v. Utah Power & Light Co./Pacificorp, 2002 UT 31, ¶ 7, 44 P.3d 775. “Our determination of reasonableness is guided by the fundamental principle that an agency's rules ‘must be construed in a manner consistent with the statute.’ ” Dorsey, 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 8, 294 P.3d 580 (quoting SF Phosphates Ltd. Co. v. Auditing Div., Utah State Tax Comm'n, 972 P.2d 384, 386 (Utah 1998) ).
¶ 10 The CSC, “like other tribunals of limited jurisdiction, can exercise only such powers as are conferred upon it by statute.” Salt Lake City Corp. v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 908 P.2d 871, 875 (Utah Ct.App.1995)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Utah Const. art. XI, § 8. Under the controlling statute, which is part of the Utah Municipal Code, the CSC is charged with regulating employment in the police, fire, and health departments, including hearing and determining appeals from suspensions and discharges. Utah Code Ann. § 10–3–1012. The CSC statute provides that “[a]ny person suspended or discharged may, within five days from the issuance ... of the order of suspension or discharge, appeal to the civil service commission.” Id. § 10–3–1012(2). Although the statute provides that the CSC “shall fully hear and determine the matter,” id., it does not establish procedural rules for appeals and instead authorizes the CSC to “make all necessary rules and regulations” to carry out its work, id. § 10–3–1006.
¶ 11 In accordance with this authority, the CSC adopted a rule to establish a procedure for appealing a discharge. The rule provides:
All requests for appeals must be in writing, addressed to the Commission, and filed with the Secretary of the Commission. Depending on the manner of delivery of the decision or action being appealed, all requests for appeal must be filed ... within five (5) business days of the date the decision or action was personally delivered to the person requesting the appeal.
Salt Lake City Civil Service Commission Rules & Regulations 6–2–1 (2012) (emphasis added), https://perma.cc/8YH2–A84K. Thus, whether Hollenbach's notice of appeal was timely under this rule depends on the meaning of the term “filed.”
¶ 12 The interpretation of any rule begins with its plain language. R & R Indus. Park, LLC v. Utah Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2008 UT 80, ¶ 23, 199 P.3d 917
. But the CSC's rules are “ ‘subordinate to statutes and cannot confer greater rights or disabilities.’ ” See Dorsey, 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 19, 294 P.3d 580
(quoting Rocky Mountain Energy v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 852 P.2d 284, 287 (Utah 1993) ). We must therefore construe the language of the CSC's rule in a manner “ ‘consistent with its governing statutes.’ ” See
id. ¶ 19 (quoting Sanders Brine Shrimp v. Audit Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 846 P.2d 1304, 1306 (Utah 1993) ).
¶ 13 The requirement that an appeal to the CSC must be “filed” is not in the governing statute; the CSC added this provision to the rule it promulgated. Accordingly, we must interpret the term “filed” based on its plain language and also must ensure the term is interpreted in a manner consistent with the Utah Code.
¶ 14 Hollenbach argues Utah Code section 68–3–8.5
, which defines when reports and other documents are filed, governs appeals filed with the CSC. The City disagrees for two reasons. It argues section 68–3–8.5 does not apply because (1) a request for appeal sent to the CSC does not fall within the statute's definition of report and (2) a request for appeal sent to the CSC is like an appeal governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which defines the term “filed” as the date a document is received.
Utah Code Ann. § 68–3–8.5(2)(a)(i)–(ii)
(LexisNexis 2014). If “a report ... is mailed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Magness
...narrowly focusing only on what was said at the plea hearing, which by definition constitutes an abuse of discretion. Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 2016 UT App 64, ¶ 9, 372 P.3d 55 ("[L]egal errors, such as the incorrect interpretation of a statute or the application of an improper le......
- Bade-Brown v. Labor Comm'n